Prepare for the end: the case for a shareholders' agreement

29 Apr 2019

In the words of one of my favourite fictional characters, “hope for the best, plan for the worst”*.
At the start of a business relationship, particularly when setting up a limited company, no one wants to think about what may go wrong in the future.  A little like getting married when no-one wants to contemplate divorce down the line, at the outset everyone is positive about what lies ahead, and keen to get going with their new business venture. Rarely do people pause to consider the negatives.  However, as a dispute resolution/litigation lawyer, I have seen many business relationships end in deadlock, disharmony and costly disputes.
Often, documenting your business relationship at the outset, for example, in a shareholders’ agreement, could have avoided the problems that arise. Such an agreement can set out how certain situations and difficulties could be overcome in the future. Spending money on legal advice at the time of setting up your business could therefore prove to be invaluable, even when there is little room in the budget.
A shareholders’ agreement can include various clauses, but in particular parties should give some specific thought to and include provisions that:
  • deal with any deadlocks
  • provide for the sale/purchase and transfers of shares
  • set out the basis that gives rise to good/bad leavers
  • set out any dividend policies
  • set out any restrictions on the parties
  • set out the matters requiring shareholder approval
  • provide protection for minority/majority shareholders
  • set out clearly any dispute resolution mechanisms
This is by no means an exhaustive list.
Resolving disputes
In the absence of a shareholders’ agreement that sets out how issues or disputes should be resolved, there may be limited ways in which a deadlock could be broken or the value in a shareholding realised.  Two alternatives to try and 'solve the issue' would be to petition the Court for the company to be wound up on just and equitable grounds, or to consider bringing an unfair prejudice claim under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006.
It goes without saying that winding up the company would potentially destroy any value in it, whereas an unfair prejudice petition may result in both parties having to fund costly legal proceedings from their own pockets. The company’s funds should not be used to fund legal costs in such an action. In the absence of being able to pursue either of these avenues, the parties may find themselves locked into the company, unable to realise their investment unless common sense and agreement prevails.
It therefore pays to “hope for the best, plan for the worst” at the outset.

*Jack Reacher in a series of novels by Lee Childs 

Further reading

CMA fines pharmaceutical company more than £100m

Drug pricing policies under scrutiny as CMA comes down hard on inflated prices and supernormal profits
Read more Read

5 data protection changes to be aware of

Commercial law specialist Liz Gillingham provides a summary of recent developments in data protection law
Read more Read

Destination: office?

Blog, News & PR
Emily Wood considers the results of our recent survey and the implications for the future of the post-pandemic workplace
Read more Read

Commercial lease renewals and pandemic clauses

Will commercial reality trump the law when leases are up for renewal? Property expert James Picknell takes a look
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax


    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch